A Framework of Organizational Empowerment for
Strategic Military Leaders
by
Lieutenant Colonel Matthew F. Rasmussen United States Army
United States Army War College Class of 2012
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: A Approved for Public Release
Distribution is Unlimited
This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The views expressed in this student academic research
paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 22-03-2012
2. REPORT TYPE Strategy Research Project
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
A Framework of Organizational Empowerment for Strategic Military Leaders 5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Lieutenant Colonel Matthew F. Rasmussen 5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
AND ADDRESS(ES)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Dr. Craig Bullis Department of Command, Leadership, and Management
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) U.S. Army War College 122 Forbes Avenue 122 Forbes Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013
122 Forbes Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution A: Unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT Army culture and the leadership doctrine of Mission Command hold potential for empowerment. Senior leaders champion the need for empowered units, leadership books recommend that leaders should empower their subordinates, and there is a general sense that empowerment is a desired condition. However, in the hierarchical and patriarchal culture of the United States Army, how do leaders foster empowered organizations and how do we measure empowerment? As we move into a post-conflict transition period in the Army’s history, strategic leaders will face the challenge of inspiring Soldiers in a garrison environment. Empowered organizations will help motivate Soldiers accustomed to high levels of responsibility in combat, help redistribute tasks and responsibility among a reduced force structure, and help retain our most capable leaders. This paper will discuss empowerment in the unique context of military decision-making, making the case for increased empowerment in the military culture, providing a military-specific definition of empowerment, featuring models for strategic leaders to use in developing empowered organizations, reviewing measurement concepts, and providing recommendations for change to specific Army practices.
15. SUBJECT TERMS Leadership, Decision Making, Leader Development
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
UNCLASSIFED b. ABSTRACT UNCLASSIFED
c. THIS PAGE UNCLASSIFED
UNLIMITED
50
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
A FRAMEWORK OF ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT FOR STRATEGIC MILITARY LEADERS
by
Lieutenant Colonel Matthew F. Rasmussen United States Army
Professor Craig Bullis Project Adviser
This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
ABSTRACT
AUTHOR: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew F. Rasmussen TITLE: A Framework of Organizational Empowerment for Strategic Military
Leaders FORMAT: Strategy Research Project DATE: 22 March 2012 WORD COUNT: 9,076 PAGES: 48 KEY TERMS: Leadership, Decision Making, Leader Development CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
Army culture and the leadership doctrine of Mission Command hold potential for
empowerment. Senior leaders champion the need for empowered units, leadership
books recommend that leaders should empower their subordinates, and there is a
general sense that empowerment is a desired condition. However, in the hierarchical
and patriarchal culture of the United States Army, how do leaders foster empowered
organizations and how do we measure empowerment? As we move into a post-conflict
transition period in the Army’s history, strategic leaders will face the challenge of
inspiring Soldiers in a garrison environment. Empowered organizations will help
motivate Soldiers accustomed to high levels of responsibility in combat, help redistribute
tasks and responsibility among a reduced force structure, and help retain our most
capable leaders. This paper will discuss empowerment in the unique context of military
decision-making, making the case for increased empowerment in the military culture,
providing a military-specific definition of empowerment, featuring models for strategic
leaders to use in developing empowered organizations, reviewing measurement
concepts, and providing recommendations for change to specific Army practices.
A FRAMEWORK OF ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT FOR STRATEGIC MILITARY LEADERS
Similar to the Interwar or Interbellum Period (1918–1939), today’s United States
Army finds itself in a period of transition as we terminate one war (Operation Iraqi
Freedom) and disengage from a second war (Operation Enduring Freedom –
Afghanistan). Additionally, continued and rapid technological change challenges
traditional concepts of warfare and leadership, much like that which challenged the
German army of the 1930’s. However, whereas the threat (enemy) in the 1930’s was
rather clear, the United States faces today a vague and morphing threat.
During our most recent interwar period, from 1991 through 2001 following
Operation Desert Storm, the United States Government chose to reduce active duty
forces and reorganize force structure, much as the Army is currently poised to do.
Therefore, the Army would be wise to review the lessons identified by previous Chiefs of
Staff of the Army, and then analyze what current Army senior leaders are saying with
respect to the upcoming inter-war period.
General Dennis J. Reimer became Chief of Staff of the Army in 1995 as the Army
leveled-off from post-Desert Storm force reductions. He led a garrison Army whose
mission was to prepare for war. According to some, officers throughout the ranks
adopted a zero-defect mentality, the antithesis of empowerment. Reimer’s command
philosophy clearly espoused a climate of empowerment1 while he also clearly battled a
disempowering officer corps, as indicated by his writing below.
Positive leadership can eliminate micromanagement, careerism, integrity violations and the zero defects mind-set. These attitudes are an unfortunate side effect of the turmoil created by the downsizing of our
2
Army. These attitudes have appeared in the past – but we defeated them. We will do so again.
America’s Army is unique in the world. Our advantage is the creativity, initiative, and ingenuity of our soldiers. To foster this advantage, we must be willing to underwrite honest mistakes, focus on soldiers and mentor the next generation of leaders.2
General Reimer clearly honored the virtue of empowering leadership, especially for a
downsized force and a garrison Army, while his successor witnessed the completion of
the Interwar Period and the start of our current wars.
In his seminal white paper titled Concepts of the Objective Force, Chief of Staff of
the Army, General Eric K. Shinseki, detailed his vision for shaping the future force by
describing “new ways and means of conducting military operations in the future.”3
Shinseki predicted that the speed of tactical operations and decision-making would
greatly increase, a prediction substantiated in the past decade of war. He looked
towards technology to overcome these challenges and wrote extensively on
organizational structural and technological reforms. Shinseki also predicted
“unprecedented opportunities for decentralized decisionmaking” but, unfortunately,
wrote partially on the human dimension of warfare and did not provide the tools to
capitalize on the opportunity.4 Likewise, Shinseki talked of self-synchronizing forces
without providing the authority to do so. Technology may provide the information to
make decisions and self-synchronize at the lowest levels, but without the authority (the
empowerment) to act, the benefits of enhanced decision-making at the lowest level are
lost. While Reimer clearly talked empowerment, he perhaps did not have the time to
implement fully training, education, and modeling systems to inculcate empowerment
into the Army culture. Conversely, Shinseki implemented technological and
3
organizational systems that were potentially empowering, but did not explicitly advocate
empowerment.
In 2003, under Chief of Staff of the Army General Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army
implemented Mission Command, a potentially empowering model of command and
control. However, as will be discussed later, the Army’s practice of Mission Command
focuses on the commander, not subordinates, and does not address shared decision-
making, shared responsibility, or subordinate initiative.
In 2009, retired Lieutenant General James M. Dubik advocated that the nature of
Army leadership was changing and that our doctrine was not keeping pace. In his
article, Dubrik writes, “The nonhierarchical aspect of leadership was primarily the realm
of senior leaders. That world has changed. Today junior leaders operate in a
nonhierarchical leadership environment almost immediately. Our leadership doctrine is
not fully capturing this reality.”5 In other words, subordinate leaders desire
empowerment, but the Army has not adequately taught and reinforced senior leaders
who empower.
For at least the past sixteen years, senior Army leaders have danced around the
subject of empowerment without explicitly defining what it means to empower or be
empowered and without providing the resources for implementation. Lieutenant General
Theodore G. Stroub, former Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, said it best when
he stated, “If we claim that we want to empower people to do what is right, encourage
initiative and allow people to make honest mistakes, then we must do more than just
state these values. We must act in a manner that communicates our values and
assumptions to our people. Action, not just words, will change our culture.”6 As we
4
examine, question, and evaluate many aspects of the Army organization during this new
interwar period and during a time of significant budget constraints, it seems an
appropriate time for the Army to reexamine its concept of positive leadership with
emphasis on empowerment.
This paper challenges the Industrial Age and mechanistic leadership model of
command and control in favor of a model that embraces empowerment as a core tenet.
Army culture and the leadership doctrine of Mission Command hold potential for
empowerment. Senior leaders champion the need for empowered units, leadership
books recommend that leaders should empower their subordinates, and there is a
general sense that empowerment is a desired condition. However, in the hierarchical
and patriarchal culture of the United States Army, how do leaders foster empowered
organizations and how do we measure empowerment? As we move into a post-conflict
transition period in the Army’s history, strategic leaders will face the challenge of
inspiring Soldiers in a garrison environment. Empowered organizations will help
motivate Soldiers accustomed to high levels of responsibility in combat, help redistribute
tasks and responsibility among a reduced force structure, and help retain our most
capable leaders. This paper will offer a military definition of empowerment, make the
case for increased empowerment in the military culture, propose a model for strategic
leaders to use in developing empowered organizations, review concepts of measuring
empowerment, and provide recommendations for change to specific Army practices.
Defining Empowerment
The popularity of empowerment ebbed and flowed for the past half century,
moving through different disciplines and adopting different meaning. Though articulated
by military professionals as an important tenet of leadership and a desired outcome in
5
organizations, it was not until 2009 that a U.S. War College student defined
empowerment in the military culture. After reviewing and considering the concept across
time and disciplines, this paper will propose a definition tailored for military use.
Empowerment can be appraised at different levels, a concept critical to
understand before defining and modeling empowerment. To understand best
empowerment, one can view it in much the same way as we view levels of military
command (tactical, operational, and strategic). Empowerment can be at the individual
(or psychological) level, the social-structural level, the organizational level, the
community level, and the national level.7 While there is limited research of the
community and national levels, there is extensive academic study of empowerment at
the individual and organizational levels, and this paper will focus likewise.
Like levels, academics often analyze empowerment as both a process and an
outcome. Ruth Alsop and Nina Heinsohn’s definition of empowerment provides a
framework useful for continuing the discussion of definition. Alsop and Heinsohn define
empowerment as “enhancing an individual’s or group’s capacity to make choices and
transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.”8 Their definition includes
groups, and this is key to expanding the discussion of empowerment from direct
leadership to indirect leadership at the higher levels of organizational structure.
Additionally, Alsop’s and Heinsohn’s definition includes a footnote of significant value.
Here they highlight that empowerment is both a process and an outcome. “The term
empowerment is commonly used to indicate both a process (of empowering groups or
individuals) and an outcome (a person or group is empowered).”9 Upon detailed
scrutiny, Army doctrine and senior leader discussion center near exclusively on the
6
“outcome” and not on the “process.” Colloquially speaking, senior Army leaders say that
empowerment is a great thing to have without making the case of its attributes and
without detailing the process of how to create it. This paper aims to rectify this
shortcoming.
Yehuda Baruch provides a colloquial definition to consider before moving on to
definitions that are more academic. Baruch defines empowerment as “the delegation of
power which enables people at lower organizations layers to make decisions, though
empowerment means more than merely delegation. Empowerment is concerned with
trust, motivation, decision making and basically, breaking the inner boundaries between
management and employees as ‘them’ versus ‘us’.”10 This definition introduces the
concept of power, a concept that is essential to the discussion of empowerment and,
therefore, will be reviewed briefly.
The classic work by social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven
developed the idea of power in a leadership context by proposing five bases of power:
Coercive, Reward, Legitimate, Referent, and Expert.11 Coercive power is the ability to
influence others through coercion. It focuses on the use of threats to gain strict
compliance. Most regard coercive power as a negative leadership style. Reward power
is the ability to give that which subordinates desire or remove what is undesired, thereby
rewarding the employing with compliant behavior. This co-dependent relationship can
develop into a quid-pro-quo situation. Rewards can be as simple as compliments or as
significant as promotions. Legitimate power is authority obtained by virtue of position, a
concept familiar to most military people. Because a leader holds a specific title or
organizational position, subordinates comply based on the assumption or fact that the
7
leader can reward and punish. Referent power is the ability to influence others through
personal charisma. This, too, is often associated with the military, and also politics,
where subordinates view leaders as role models, selflessly and virtuously serving
others. Lastly, expert power is the ability to instill trust in subordinates though the use of
expert knowledge. Expert power is often associated with professionals like doctors and
lawyers.12 With a better understanding of power, the discussion on defining
empowerment can continue.
Professor Gretchen Spreitzer is perhaps the leading expert tracing
empowerment’s evolution as a concept over the past 35 years. In writing with Jean
Bartunek, Spreitzer and Bartunek explain, “This term [empowerment], which refers in its
simplest, original sense to some type of sharing or enabling of power, appeared in the
late 1960s within the discipline of religion and has since been adapted into and
transformed by many social science disciplines, including management.”13 Bartunek and
Spreitzer studied the use of the word empowerment through different disciplines over
time and found three themes resonating across disciplines – sharing real power,
fostering human welfare, and fostering productivity.14 A review of their definitions will
help develop a more holistic understanding of the term before proposing a military
definition. The following are definitions from different disciplines as researched by
Bartunek and Spreitzer:
Religion. “The emphasis...was largely on sharing real power, and the typical
referents for this sharing were classes of people (e.g., the poor and the marginalized).”15
Sociology. “It was in this database that political participation, personal meaning,
enabling others, and connectedness were introduced.”16 Furthermore, “Much of the
8
sociological literature on empowerment has focus on increasing the political power of
underrepresented minorities.”17
Education. “It was in education that control over destiny, increasing knowledge,
participation in decision making, enabling others, providing resources, taking
responsibility, and dignity and respect were introduced.”18 Additionally, “The education
literature tends to focus more on individuals than large social groupings.”19
Psychology. “The predominant meanings given to the term in psychology include
increasing self-worth, strengthening the power of underrepresented, and control over
destiny.”20
Social Work. This discipline has “focused largely on empowerment as control
over one’s destiny, increasing knowledge, increasing self-worth, and increasing the
power of the underrepresented.”21
Management. “The primary definition emphasized in the management literature
is participation in decision making (a distant second is increasing knowledge).”22
Additionally, “The meaning...has also focused on increasing employees’ knowledge,
information, and resources to take more ownership of their work.”23 Furthermore, “The
more or less explicit expectation in these domains is that empowerment will increase
the productivity of workers and reduce the costs of supervision.”24
In this managerial context, many view empowerment as a key component of
organizational change, a germane topic for current Army leaders. In collaboration with
David Doneson, Spreitzer writes, “Rather than forcing or pushing people to change,
empowerment provides a way of attracting them to want to change because they have
9
ownership in the change process.”25 Also from the management and leadership
disciplines, Bennis and Goldsmith describe empowerment as follows:
What we mean by empowerment of all involved really has to do with people sensing that they are at the center of things, rather than at the periphery, that everyone feels he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization.26
Such a definition gets to the heart of team building. Everyone does his or her job, seeks
out to do their job, and then goes beyond their normal responsibilities. Everyone not
only takes responsibility for his or her duties, but also takes responsibility for the mission
and vision of the organization.
Transitioning to a military definition of empowerment, the Army does not explicitly
define empowerment but rather discusses empowerment within the context of
leadership and Mission Command. Field Manual 6-22 Army Leadership dated October
12, 2006 describes aspects of empowerment as a component of team building and
organizational leadership rather than offering a distinct definition. Referencing previous
leadership doctrine, Field Manual 22-100 of August 1999 did define empowerment in
paragraph 5-33, at least according to the manual’s index. That paragraph reads in part,
“You empower subordinates when you train them to do a job, give them the necessary
resources and authority, get out of their way, and let them work.”27 A near identical
“definition” appears in Field Manual 6-22 in paragraph 7-38 though not labeled as a
definition in the index. This paragraph reads in part, “Empower subordinates by training
them to do a job and providing them with necessary task strategies; give them the
necessary resources, authority and clear intent; and then step aside to let them
accomplish the mission.”28 Thus, the Army is consistent across doctrine as to its
description of empowerment. While not an academic definition, the description does
10
allude to processes by which to promote empowerment but does not describe desired
outcomes.
In 2009, Colonel Robert M. Mundell provided a military definition of
empowerment in his United States Army War College thesis, “Empowerment: A 21st
Century Leaders Critical Core Competency.” He writes, “Empowerment as it applies to
Army leaders, is relinquishing or surrendering power by sharing authority with
subordinates with respect to influencing outcomes while simultaneously retaining the
inherent responsibility for the well being and welfare of a unit.”29 This definition
addresses the patriarchal challenge of the Army; that is, the tradition and, in fact,
regulatory requirement that commanders hold the responsibility of all that occurs and
fails to occur in the unit.30 However, this definition only speaks to individual
empowerment and defines empowerment as only a process, thus discounting the group
and the outcome aspects that characterize the empowerment literature.
Therefore, the following definition of empowerment for a military culture
combines themes from various disciplines and expands on Mundell’s:
Empowerment is a tenet of military command and leadership whereby legitimate power is shared and enabled through the delegation of decision-making authority so as to increase an individual’s or group’s autonomy to make decisions and transform those choices into desired actions.
This definition addresses both process and outcome in an attempt to define clearly
“what” the leader must do and “what” the intended outcome is. Additionally, the terms
“individual” and “group” replace “subordinate” or “employee” in order to include not only
subordinates, but also peers. This raises the definition from exclusively a tactical term to
an operational term, accounting for indirect leadership. While the basic definition is
11
sufficient, discussion of military empowerment should expand the concept of desired
outcomes and address command responsibility.
Drawing from the definitions of various fields, the empowering leader should
expect additional outcomes beyond simply the individual’s or group’s autonomy to make
decisions. Other outcomes desired include the following:
Increased accountability by all in the organization
Increased communication and feedback
Increased knowledge of organizational mission
Increased organizational agility to respond to challenges or opportunities
Increased personal meaning or sense of purpose
Increased sense of connectedness between subordinates and leader
Increased representation of underrepresented (minorities)
Increased productivity and/or efficiency.
These outcomes largely depend on the capability of individuals – for example, their
knowledge, expertise, training, and intellect. The Army Field Manual definition alludes to
this by stating how the leader must provide subordinates with training, strategies, and
resources. While true the subordinate must possess the capacity to be empowered, the
field manual reinforces the Army’s patriarchal culture by indicating the leader is
responsible for the subordinate’s capacity, vice the subordinate sharing responsibility for
their own psychological empowerment.
Though debatable who is responsible for the capability of subordinates, the Army
is clear that commanders are responsible for the overall success or failure of an
organization. As discussed earlier, Mundell includes this concept in his definition.
12
Because this is another reinforcement of a patriarchal culture, a dogma perhaps
unsuited for the modern military culture, this paper’s definition of empowerment does
not include reference to command responsibility. Instead, command responsibility as
dictated by Army regulation is acknowledged as a factor influencing the environment in
which leaders must operate, but not a defining factor for empowerment.
The hope is that all leaders, both formal (commanders) and informal, tactical
through strategic, adopt the definition of empowerment offered here as a clear
characterization of the process and outcome of empowerment. As Bartunek and
Spreitzer point out, “ambiguity in meaning may be particularly dangerous if
organizations are implementing empowerment strategies and fail to define what they
mean.”31 While senior leaders exhort the need for empowering leadership and
empowered organizations, the failure to provide concrete meaning as it applies to the
military is potentially disenfranchising. The concrete meaning provided here aims to
resolve any misunderstanding.
The Value of Empowerment
So, why empowerment? Why should the military professional care about some
ambiguous concept that is difficult to foster, much less measure? Why should they
promote this concept when the Army is a hierarchal and patriarchal culture that has
been relatively successful for over 237 years?
First, the Army is a learning institution that seeks continual improvement through
reflection and positive change. As stated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “it
is imperative that we reflect on our experiences during the past 10 years to assess the
impact and understand both our strengths and weaknesses...This will enable us to
promote the knowledge, skills, attributes, and behaviors that define us as a profession,
13
and develop our future leaders.”32 By reflecting on the successes and failures of our
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army can assess if empowerment should have a
greater role in leadership and decision-making; an idea promoted in this paper.
Second, senior Army and Joint leaders espouse the need for empowered
Soldiers and units so as to be able to more quickly learn, adapt, and implement change
in response to a more agile and complex enemy. In the Capstone Concept for Joint
Operations of January 2009, Admiral Michael G. Mullen writes, “we will need to select,
educate, train, equip and manage our people differently. We will need to envision and
create new organizations.”33 The assumption is that the Chairman actually means new
organizational design, vice more of the same design, and given this assumption, we
should envision new models of leadership as well. Mullen continues, “To succeed, we
need adaptive and thinking professionals who understand the capabilities their Service
brings to joint operations and how to apply those capabilities in a flexible manner...
Above all, we need professionals imbued with a sense of commitment and honor who
will act decisively in the absence of specific guidance.”34 This is the heart of
empowerment, the ability to act decisively in the absence of specific guidance.
Third, the future of warfare may be such that agility is most needed at the small
unit and individual level. With what some describe as Industrial Age or Clausewitzian
warfare, the goal was to destroy the enemy’s forces using battalions (or higher) as the
centerpiece formations of force-on-force engagement. Contrarily and as perhaps
demonstrated in the past decade, some view future battles as limited, tactical
engagements but with strategic consequences. As such, the centerpiece formation is
the small unit – the platoon, squad, and even individual. In fact, former Chief of Staff of
14
the Army General Martin E. Dempsey led a dramatic institutional shift in focus, from the
Brigade Combat Team to the Squad in order to build capability, doctrine, and training
from the bottom up. As such, empowerment may be a tool to ensure individuals at all
levels can manifest the best information and even act decisively within the commander’s
intent and without explicit direction.
Fourth, empowerment has a substantiated record of accomplishment in
corporate and non-profit organizations. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask if
empowerment could improve the military culture. Senior leaders seem to think so, and
the purpose of this paper is to consider these assertions in the current military context.
As discussed in the introduction, the time is advantageous to assess, and
perhaps implement, a new style of leadership. In history, the Army used the inter-war
periods to reassess doctrine in preparation for future challenges, and in this light, the
time is now to reassess the Army’s tradition of hierarchal and patriarchal leadership.
The Army culture provides sufficient and significant control mechanisms to influence the
behavior of Soldiers. It does this through tradition, values, ethos, beliefs, visions, and
regulations. However, what escapes most leadership doctrine is that individuals have
their own traditions, values, beliefs, visions and self-regulating scripts. As aptly
described by Charles C. Manz, “From an organizational perspective, recognizing and
facilitating employee self-regulating systems pose a viable and more realistic view of
control than views centered entirely on external influence.”35 Through empowerment, we
release the potential of individual self-regulating systems and thereby potentially reduce
the predominance of external control.
15
Another way to examine empowerment is to analyze how decisions are made
and, in the context of this paper, how decisions are made in a military culture. The
person with authoritative power may make unilateral decisions or involve participation
by stakeholders. Victor Vroom from Yale University is a leading expert on decision-
making, and in reviewing the work of Professor Paul Nutt, Vroom concluded that
participative decision-making resulted in decisions that are more successful. “Some of
the predictors of decision success pertained to deficiencies in the technical aspects of
the decision process. Inadequate framing of the problems and premature closure on a
solution are typical examples, but the best predictors of success or failure could be
found not in cognitive processes but in social ones [emphasis added]. These included
the degree of involvement and participation of key stakeholders in the development of
the problem solution. Decisions that used participation to foster implementation
succeeded more than 80 percent of the time.”36 Thus, decisions made in collaboration
had better success than those made in isolation.
This is quite astounding, that social aspects of decision-making are more
important than cognitive aspects. Vroom adds, “[Professor] Nutt’s findings remind us
that effective decision making is not merely a matter of decision quality but also of
ensuring that the decision will have the necessary support and commitment for its
effective implementation. In this sense, decision-making merges with issues of
leadership, particularly the degree and manner in which a leader involves others in the
decision-making process.”37 Vroom concedes that not all situations lend themselves to
participative decision-making nor do all subordinates respond positively to participation.
Participation can slow the decision-making process but, at higher levels, the timing of
16
decisions may be more important than speed. The benefits of participation include, (1)
increasing human capital by serving as training of subordinates, (2) promoting team
building and positive relationships, and (3) helping align individual with organizational
goals.38
Another attribute of empowerment is that empowered individuals are more
resilient and have higher morale when faced with workplace downsizing, an attribute
strikingly applicable to the current Army. A decade of war and an uncertain future place
significant stress on Soldiers and their families. Spreitzer concluded that empowerment
fosters resilience to adversity and helps people to bounce back from extraordinary
devastation and loss of human life.39 Additionally, Spreitzer determined that
empowerment is important to preserving the hope and attachment of survivors during
times of organizational downsizing, a useful quality as the Army reduces force
structure.40 Therefore, as the military redeploys from combat and reduces size,
empowerment may help Soldiers maintain their morale and emotional health.
Though endowed with substantiated benefits, empowerment may not be the
most effective leadership model for all situations or the panacea for organizational
change. Perkins and Zimmerman make clear in their warning, “Although empowerment
does provide the field [community psychology] with a useful approach for working in
communities and is a compelling construct clearly in need of further research, it is not
the only approach nor is it a panacea.”41 Yehuda Baruch agrees, “There are quite a few
possible obstacles to the implementation of empowerment, and the literature is
beginning to reveal cases where applying empowerment failed to produce impact.”42
Therefore, the challenge for leaders is to determine when empowerment can enhance
17
individual or organizational effectiveness, and when it cannot. Models can assist leaders
in understanding the components of empowerment and help in the application of
empowerment – when to use and when not.
Models of Empowerment
One purpose of this paper is to expand the discussion of empowerment within
the military culture, specifically by providing principles, definitions, and constructs so
that leaders can better understand, and potentially implement, empowerment. However,
in developing a more empirical understanding of empowerment, one should not
conclude that empowerment is an all or nothing condition. Rather, like many social
science concepts, it is more accurate to view empowerment as a state of varying
degrees. As an example, Figure 1 is a model that depicts the continuum of individual
(psychological) and team (social-structural) empowerment, from disempowered to fully
empowered. Therefore, the intent of this discussion of models is to provide the leader
with substantive constructs, some supported by empirical data, so that they may better
understand and, when appropriate, implement empowerment.
Figure 143
18
Before introducing the models, it is useful to consider some constructs to help
understand modeling. Harking back to the discussion of definitions, Douglas D. Perkins
and Marc A. Zimmerman state that “theories of empowerment include both process and
outcomes... [and] a distinction between empowering processes and outcomes is critical
in order to clearly define empowerment theory.”44 As an example, processes at the
organizational level could include collective decision-making and shared leadership
whereas outcomes at the organizational level could include organizational growth and
policy leverage.45
The Army does not have a model dedicated to only empowerment, but instead
includes empowerment as a component of its leadership model. Figure 2 is the Army’s
Leadership Requirements Model which some may argue is a set of principles rather
than a model. The text itself reinforces this position, “The model’s basic components
center on what a leader is and what a leader does.” Additionally, note how the text also
refers to empowering the leader vice empowering the organization or subordinates.
Rather than differentiating between empowerment as an outcome and a process, the
Army’s model is more a set of principles focused on empowering the leader, rather than
a model a leader can use to empower others.
19
Figure 246
In 1987, Peter Block introduced to the business community a model of traditional
bureaucratic management and offered an alternative model of enlightened,
entrepreneurial leadership, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 347
The bureaucratic model sheds light on what many in the military culture would
find familiar, namely the Patriarchal Contract and Dependency. According to Block, the
Patriarchal Contract between a highly bureaucratic organization and the employee
20
includes the following: “submission to authority, denial of self-expression, sacrifice for
unnamed future rewards, belief that the above are just.”48 Those in the military would
find this familiar as Block points-out himself, “The traditional contract is patriarchal in its
emphasis on a top-down, high-control orientation. It stems from the success that the
military and the church have historically had with centralized control and clarity of roles,
levels of authority, and the need for discipline and self-control.”49 This basic contract
ultimately leads to employee dependency, a significant barrier to empowerment.
On the other hand, the entrepreneurial model describes a process of
empowerment that leads to employee autonomy, a desired outcome of the empowered
organization. The process begins with an entrepreneurial contract between the
organization and employee. The entrepreneurial contract recommended by Block
includes the following: “be our own authority, encourage self-expression, make
commitments, believe that the above are just.” The basic premise of the entrepreneurial
contract is that the employee ultimately decides success of a decision by his actions or
inactions upon implementation. “This means that we as managers have to give up some
of our control, deemphasize the power we have over people under us, and
acknowledge that while the captain may choose direction, the engine room drives the
ship.”50
Enlightened self-interest is a realization that individual success “is inevitably
linked and interdependent with the self-interest of the business and the other people
around us.”51 This concept is in opposition to the bureaucratic model, where self-interest
involves “the pursuit of safety, control, advancement, approval, and territory for its own
sake.”52
21
In the entrepreneurial leadership cycle, organizational members must act with
authentic tactics. “Authentic acts are an antidote to the manipulative tactics outlined
earlier” in the bureaucratic model.53 Block provides four examples of authentic acts.
They are, “say no when we mean no, share as much information as possible, use
language that describes reality, avoid repositioning for the sake of acceptance.”54 While
the first two examples are apparent, the last two examples deserve a brief explanation.
The basic premise of using language that describes reality is to use plain
language vice pseudonyms. For example, instead of referring to “downsizing” or
“creating efficiencies,” leaders and subordinates should clearly admit that workers will
be fired or laid-off as the organization reduces in size. Some leaders may say that they
simply do not want to alarm or offend people, but Block contends that this is
“organizational cruelty.”55 Others may say that it is simply intellectual honesty. Likewise,
the last example is also an act of intellectual honesty.
The idea to avoid repositioning for the sake of acceptance means to honestly
promote your ideas or decisions on their merits. Repositioning is a change in the way
we talk about business, rather than truly changing the way we do business.56 It is
repackaging or marketing for a connection to the current trend, in an attempt to gain
acceptance by riding the coattails of popular belief. This is intellectually dishonest and
has no place in an empowered or entrepreneurial organization.
The result of an entrepreneurial contract combined with enlightened self-interest
and authentic acts is autonomy. Autonomy, vice dependency, “is the essential condition
for empowering ourselves and those around us.”57
22
In contrast to this somewhat linear model of empowerment proposed by Block,
Professor Charles C. Manz offers a multi-level model of organizational and self-control
systems which impact the level of empowerment (Figure 4). Manz introduces the
concept of self-regulation or, in his terms, self-leadership – “the influence organization
members exert over themselves.”58 Manz develops the concepts of organizational
control systems but contends that those systems do not directly influence the individual.
This is similar to Block’s assumption that ultimately the individual decides. Manz states,
“the impact of organizational control mechanisms is determined by the way they
influence, in intended as well as unintended ways, the self-control systems within
organization members.”59
Figure 460
While the specific aspects of both the organizational and individual self-control
systems are rather apparent, the conclusion or “so what” is not readily apparent. Manz
succinctly describes the conclusion,
23
From an organizational perspective, recognizing and facilitating employee self-regulating systems pose a viable and more realistic view of control than views centered entirely on external influence. In addition, overreliance on external controls can lead to a number of dysfunctional employee behaviors: ‘rigid bureaucratic behavior,’ (performance of only those behaviors that are rewarded by the control system), inputting of invalid information into management information systems, and so forth.61
Prompted by the Army’s traditions and hierarchal culture, many leaders may default to
external organizational controls by using policies, standards, appraisals, reward, and
punishment. In Manz’ opinion, the ability to influence the individual’s self-regulating or
self-leadership processes is better than imposing organizational control systems. This
self-leadership of employees is synonymous with empowered employees. The
implication or suggestion, therefore, is for leaders to institute organizational control
systems that aim to empower subordinates.
Scott Seibert, Seth Silver, and W. Alan Randolph in 2004 offered a multi-
dimensional model of empowerment incorporating both individual and group-level
dynamics (Figure 5). In their research, they concluded, “empowerment climate was
shown to be empirically distinct from psychological empowerment” and that
“psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between empowerment climate
and individual performance and job satisfaction.”62 In short, empowerment climate and
individual empowerment are separate yet positively related.
24
Figure 563
Seibert, Silver, and Randolph go on to define empowerment climate “as a shared
perception regarding the extent to which an organization makes use of structures,
policies, and practices supporting employee empowerment.”64 As shown in Figure 6,
climate includes the following dimensions: (1) information sharing, (2) autonomy through
boundaries, and (3) team accountability.
Likewise, using a Spreitzer definition, Seibert et al define psychological
empowerment “as an individual’s experience of intrinsic motivation that is based on
cognitions about him- or herself in relation to his or her work role.”65 As shown in Figure
6, psychological empowerment contains four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-
determination, and impact. The Seibert, Silver, and Randolph model, along with Manz’
model (Figure 4), assist this discussion of empowerment at the organization and
strategic level by connecting the group level of empowerment and the individual level.
25
Figure 666
Continuing with alternate models, Charles Manz and Henry Sims provide a
specific seven-step model of empowerment, as shown in Figure 767. Manz and Sims use
the term “self-leadership” to describe those who are empowered and the term
“superleadership” to describe those leaders who develop the self-leadership that “dwells
within each person.”68 Without reiterating the work of Manz and Sims, the intent is to
provide an example of a more concrete and less esoteric model for use by
organizational leaders.
Likewise, Victor H. Vroom provides a constructive model for leaders to use in
deciding the level of participation in decision-making. He appropriately calls his
normative model “Deciding How to Decide,” as shown in Figure 8. Again, avoiding a full
description of Vroom’s model, it serves as another example of a useful tool for common
use at all levels of leadership and management. Additionally, as stated previously,
26
empowerment is not a panacea or appropriate for all situations, and Vroom’s model
helps to identify when leaders should restrict empowerment and make a unilateral
decision.
Figure 769
Figure 870
These various models, therefore, help describe empowerment as process and
outcome, those actions that foster (or impede) empowerment and those manifestations
27
that are expected from an empowered (or disempowered) subordinate. Figure 1 and
Figure 8 are readily applicable to the military culture and could prove useful to leaders.
Likewise, Figure 7 could easily apply to military leaders with minor modification or
detailed explanation. Lastly, Professor Manz’ model (Figure 4) is a holistic model that
incorporates both organizational and individual empowerment and, therefore, speaks to
both tactical and strategic leaders. Combining the military definition of empowerment
with these models, military leaders may now better understand and, when appropriate,
implement empowerment. The question now, how do we know when empowerment
exists?
Measuring Empowerment
Though promoting empowerment, the Army provides no tools to measure either
individual or group empowerment. The Command Climate Survey is a quantitative
attempt to measure “climate factors” such as leadership, morale, and cohesion, but the
survey targets the small unit (company) level and does not include a measure of
empowerment. Measuring empowerment outcomes can serve to reinforce empowering
processes or practices and help draw connections to other leadership concepts such as
Mission Command. In general, there are two ways to measure empowerment –
quantitatively and qualitatively.
The Army’s Command Climate Survey is a type of quantitative measurement that
seeks to provide commanders with feedback on the climate of their unit. The
assumption is that “climate factors such as leadership, cohesion, morale, and the
human relations environment have direct impact on the effectiveness of your unit.”71 The
survey is easy to administer and provides rapid feedback. However, the survey is broad
in scope, attempting to address such wide-ranging topics as leadership styles, training
28
readiness, equal opportunity, harassment, assault, quality of life, and stress. With only
twenty-four questions addressing such varied topics, it is hard to accept the survey’s
statistical relevancy. In relation to empowerment, only four questions tangentially relate
and no conclusions with regard to empowerment are possible from this survey.
As an example of how to measure empowerment in an organization, Manuela
Pardo del Val and Bruce Lloyd validated a measuring tool of empowering climate. For
the purpose of statistical measurement, they defined empowerment as a management
style of collaborative decision-making, a definition in line with the military definition
proposed in this paper.72 Their tool aimed to measure the following dimensions: (1) the
extent to which empowerment spreads through hierarchical levels (first-line workers,
supervisors, middle managers, and top management; (2) the formal or informal
character of involvement; (3) the direct or indirect way in which employee collaboration
takes place; and (4) the degree of influence of employees along the decision-making
process.73 Figure 9 is their survey questionnaire, a rather concise set of questions.
Pardo del Val and Lloyd conclude,
Considering decisions are made along certain stages, and that there are different types of decisions, we have developed a tool to quantify the degree of empowerment at any company, taking into account the hierarchical groups collaborating in the process as well as the way such collaboration takes place...[E]mpowerment is no more an ambiguous concept, but a specific aspect that can be measured.74
This is but one example of a validated quantitative measurement tool that could
apply to military use with simple modification. However, a focus on quantitative analysis
may miss important characteristics of empowerment. Marc Zimmerman states, “As long
as we continue to use primarily quantitative methods we will have a limited
understanding of the construct. Qualitative approaches such as in-depth case histories,
29
investigative reporting (Leving, 1980), and participant observation are useful starting
points for expanding our repertoire of research methods.”75
Figure 976
Qualitative measurement and analysis is much more time-consuming and
complex but provides context and elaboration to the quantitative measurements.
Researchers collect data for qualitative study by means of semi-structured interviews,
observation, or case studies. “The analysis of this data often relies to a certain extent on
interpretation and reflection. However, generating numbers from, or quantifying, the
qualitative outputs of participatory approaches and tools is possible and can help when
trying to combine the analysis with the data from the individual survey.”77 The
implication is that qualitative measurement requires not only more time, but also expert
analysis, compared to quantitative measurement.
Beyond the scientific methods just described, there is an innate sense that
recognizes empowerment both in individuals and in groups, a sense that senior leaders
can harness. As Wheatley writes, “Those leaders who have used participation and self-
30
organization have witnessed the inherent desire that most people have to contribute to
their organizations. The commitment and energy resident in people takes leaders by
surprise. But it’s quite predictable. As leaders honor and trust the people who work with
them, they unleash startlingly high levels of contribution and creativity.”78 Those in the
military likely possess high levels of commitment and energy, but is this a result of an
empowering culture or something else?
Empowerment in the Army Culture
The Army is a patriarchal and hierarchal culture that fosters some aspects of
empowerment while hindering other aspects. Culture refers to the patterns of values
and learned behaviors that pass from generation to generation by the members of a
social group.79 Though based on hierarchical and patriarchal tenets, the culture of the
United States Army has empowering tendencies that sometimes go unnoticed. Maya
Kalyanpur and Beth Harry provide an apt metaphor, “Like fish unaware of living in
water, people tend to be unaware of being totally enveloped by their culture.”80 As such,
perhaps those in the military fail to recognize their own empowering qualities. Margaret
Wheatley agrees that the Army demonstrates a form of empowerment leadership. She
writes:
Most people associate command and control leadership with the military. Years ago, I worked for the U.S. Army chief of staff, General Gordon Sullivan. I, like most people, thought I’d see command-and-control leadership there. The great irony is that the military learned long ago that, if you want to win, you have to engage the intelligence of everyone involved in the battle. I’ve heard many military commanders state that ‘if you have to order a soldier to do something, then you’ve failed as a leader’.81
As the definitions imply, empowerment is not about equal power; someone still
needs to be the boss. Empowerment is about the distribution of power, the sharing of
31
responsibility and decision-making. Generally, this would mean redistributing power to
the lower part of the traditional hierarchy. In some respects, the Army is good at this by
recruiting young adults, providing extensive training, and providing the opportunity for
great responsibility. However, the Army’s patriarchal tradition and regulations steer its
leaders to be caretakers, parents, relationship counselors, financial advisors, and
teachers for these adults. As Peter Block describes, “Patriarchy expresses the belief
that it is those at the top who are responsible for the success of the organization and the
well-being of its members.”82 Army Regulation 600-20 clearly enforces the concept of
patriarchy by stating, “Commanders are responsible for everything their command does
or fails to do.”83 In such a culture of patriarchy, responsibility will tend to remain at the
top and empowerment encumbered. In this way, the Army culture sends a mixed
message.
The After Action Review (AAR) process also highlights the Army’s culture of
learning and of empowerment. One goal of the AAR process is for leaders to receive
feedback from subordinates on the execution of an operation. Yehuda Baruch noticed
this with the Israeli Air Force and would arguably notice the same in the U.S. military.
Baruch writes, “Whereas during the battle a direct combat ordering and command would
be the case, the debriefing enables junior pilots to have a say, to point out problems and
mistakes...Their input is appreciated and is taken into account.”84 Though challenged
with patriarchy and bureaucracy, the Army’s greatest potential for an empowering
culture lies with the leadership philosophy of Mission Command.
In today’s United States military, both the Marine Corps and Army use the
command and control philosophy known as Mission Command. However, the services
32
define Mission Command with telling differences. The Army’s definition is as follows:
Mission Command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of full spectrum operations.85
The Army definition seems to restrict the use of Mission Command to only the
commander. Further discussion of Mission Command throughout Field Manual (FM) 3-0
and FM 6-0 reinforces the role of commander as the focal point of Mission Command.
Additionally, the Army definition restricts the application of Mission Command to the use
of mission orders, as opposed to other influencing techniques. Though alluding to
subordinate initiative and empowerment, the definition does not address shared
decision-making as a desired outcome of Mission Command. Lastly, one may assume
that Mission Command is for use only in full spectrum operations and not appropriate
for other missions or the garrison environment.
In contrast, the Marine Corps definition appears much more empowering and
universal in application. The Marines define Mission Command in the following way:
Mission Command is the leadership philosophy that complements and supports the maneuver warfare philosophy of the Marine Corps...Mission Command is a cultivated leadership ethos that empowers decentralized leaders with decision authority and guides the character development of Marines in garrison and combat.86
By saying that Mission Command is a leadership philosophy and not only a command
philosophy, the Marine definition opens the possibility of Mission Command to all
Marines, not only commanders. Additionally, the Marine definition specifically asserts
the authority of decentralized decision-making and allows for Mission Command in both
garrison and combat (and with no regard to level of combat). Wheatley would likely
support this shared decision-making; she writes,
33
Reflective leaders, including those in the military, have learned that the higher the risk, the more we need everyone’s commitment and intelligence. In holding onto power and refusing to distribute decision making, leaders have created unwieldy, Byzantine systems that only increase risk and irresponsibility. We never effectively control people or situations with these systems, we only succeed in preventing intelligent work.87
The Marine Corps’ version of Mission Command would seem more likely to inspire
“intelligent work” through a high distribution of decision-making and represents a much
more empowering description of Mission Command when compared to the Army.
The Army culture, therefore, is inconsistent with its message on empowerment.
On one hand, the culture is highly dependent on hierarchy, bureaucracy, and patriarchy
but, on the other hand, attempts to give great responsibility to junior members of the
organization. Future organizational success in a changing international landscape
demands that the military reconcile this apparent paradox.
Recommendations
As Marc Zimmerman points out in referencing the research of Chavis and
Wandersman, “If our goal is to both empower the organization and enhance its
empowering potential, then we may need to develop interventions specifically designed
to address both issues. This means that our interventions would have to focus on
decision-making structures and social climate, as well as organizations expansion and
coalition building.”88 As such, recommendations presented here will be based on a clear
definition of empowerment and fall into these two broad categories, decision-making
and organizational climate, followed by recommendations for further research.
Definition. The Army should adopt a clear definition of empowerment, one that is
a stand-alone concept and addresses both process and outcome, like that offered in
this paper. A definitive definition would make empowerment unambiguous and help
34
Soldiers, leaders and subordinates, understand how to recognize an empowered
organization and what it means to be empowered. Additionally, senior leaders should
use this definition as part of their strategic communication to reinforce the concept in the
Army’s culture. As the definition states, part of being empowered is the ability to share
in decision-making.
Decision-making. The Army must fully adopt Mission Command according to the
Marine Corps interpretation and truly empower Soldiers at all levels to make decisions
with trust, risk protection, and accountability. This condition begins with focused training
and education for both leaders and subordinates, for as the models indicate,
empowerment is an amalgamation of leadership style, organizational culture, and
individual capability. Vroom makes the following recommendation, “Educating managers
to think intelligently about participation and its uses and pitfalls is critical to reducing the
high failure rate in decision.”89 Likewise, subordinates must possess the capability to be
empowered – the competence and commitment to make unilateral decisions.
Some leaders may view empowerment as a threat to their authority, arguing, as
an example, that orders cannot be questioned. If Soldiers are questioning orders, there
is a different problem, not empowerment. Most likely, the real issue is the leader’s lack
of confidence or a lack of trust between subordinate and leader. Peter Block addresses
this apparent contradiction, "Partnership [empowerment] does not mean that you [the
subordinate] always get what you want. It means you may lose your argument, but you
never lose your voice.”90 When empowered, subordinates think, believe, and know that
the leader values their opinion. Similarly, the leader who empowers subordinates gains
the invaluable resource of insight by having the confidence to listen to contradictory
35
views and the confidence to make a well-informed decision.
As Block states, “If we wish to move our organizations in an entrepreneurial
direction, we have no choice but to seriously confront our values and attitudes about
maintaining control.”91 Military culture and regulation, perhaps unwittingly, encourage
military leaders to maintain control through autocratic command – retaining all decision-
making authority. Block adds, “We can take comfort in the fact that we are only giving
up something that we never really had in the first place. We can’t lose something that
we don’t have. Deemphasizing control and keeping it in its proper perspective is not
giving up something real; it is only giving up the illusion, which isn’t such a bad thing.”92
Organizational climate. A key task for the strategic leader is to define an
organizational climate and reinforce cultural priorities. Phrased differently, and as
offered by Wheatley, the strategic leader’s primary task is to make sure the organization
knows itself.93 For the Army, that means that leaders must acknowledge the patriarchy
tendencies of the culture, challenge those tendencies, and unequivocally adopt an all-
encompassing culture of empowerment. At all levels of the Army, leaders have the
responsibility to foster an environment of empowerment.
To be truly inculcated into the Army culture, empowerment must be taught as a
fundamental principle of Army leadership, taught at all schools to include Basic Training.
According to Professor Byham, the immediate leader or supervisor has the most
influence on empowerment, followed by other people around the worker. After that, the
organization itself (payroll, benefits, suggestion systems, etc.) has the most influence on
empowerment.94
36
Army policies should also reinforce an empowerment culture by delegating
authority as much as possible and assuming trust, vice distrust. The time is optimal, as
we transition to a garrison Army, for a review all policies for garrison operations and
training to ensure we exhibit trust in our Soldiers. The Army’s latest “Leadership
Lessons at Division Level – 2010” supports this recommendation.95
Not all recommendations necessitate drastic change; some change can be
subtle, requiring only the effort of coaching. Through coaching, strategic leaders can
help empowered groups to gather information, to gain access to others, gain resources,
gain trust, and ensure follow-through. “Leaders are necessary to foster experimentation,
to help create connections across the organization, to feed the system with information
from multiple sources – all while helping everyone stay clear on what we agreed we
wanted to accomplish and who we wanted to be.”96 As Block recommends, fostering an
empowering climate can be as subtle as asking simple questions. “There is nothing a
manager can do to support an entrepreneurial [empowering] attitude with more impact
than simply to ask people two questions: ‘What do you want?’ and ‘How are you
feeling?’ These both respond to people’s need to feel that their actions are critical to our
success.”97
Any cultural change is difficult to execute, especially with an organization as
successful as the United States Army. However, this coming inter-war period provides a
window of opportunity and, therefore, this author recommends that senior leaders
review “Organizational Culture: Applying A Hybrid Model to the U.S. Army” by Stephen
J. Gerras, Leonard Wong, and Charles D. Allen.98 In this writing, the authors provide
detailed description of the Army culture and process for change, with emphasis on the
37
use of embedding and reinforcing mechanisms for change. Thus, whether intending to
change the Army culture to one that is more empowering (as is recommended in this
paper) or seeking other cultural change, the work by Gerras, Wong, and Allen could
help leaders develop a roadmap for change.
Lastly, as is often the case, this research inspired the need for further research.
Most notably, it would be beneficial to analyze the success rate of military decisions
using similar research design as Vroom and Nutt. This would provide military leaders
with empirical data and measurable results so as to reinforce the use of specific
decision-making styles.
Conclusion
As we examine, question, and evaluate many aspects of the Army organization
during this new inter-war period and during a time of extreme budget constraints, the
Army should also reexamine our concept of positive leadership with emphasis on
empowerment. If the military downsizes as expected while decision-making timelines
become ever compressed, Army leaders can no longer advocate empowerment without
actually modeling, training, educating, and holding accountable empowerment
concepts. As so aptly written in the Joint Operating Environment of 2010 by U.S. Joint
Forces Command, “If we expect to develop and sustain a military that operates at a
higher level of strategic and operational understanding, the time has come to address
the recruiting, education, training, incentive, and promotion systems so that they are
consistent with the intellectual requirements for the future Joint Force.”99
Especially under the stress of change, behavior tends to resort to what is
comfortable. If the Army is under the stress of forced reorganization in an environment
38
of volatility and uncertainty, then the Army should be cautious of resorting to archaic
forms of leadership and command. As Margaret Wheatley writes, organizations often
assume “that hierarchy and bureaucracy are the best forms of organizing. That
efficiency is the premier measure of value. That people work best under controls and
regulations.”100
This paper has been an attempt to confront the assumption that hierarchy and
bureaucracy (and patriarchy) are the best forms of organizing. Instead, an
organizational model encompassing empowerment climate and psychological
empowerment is the preferred form of organizing to foster a more adaptive force. For
the Army’s senior leaders, any organizational change starts from within, as eloquently
described by Wheatley:
The higher you are in the organization, the more change is required of you personally. Those who have led their organizations into new ways often say that the most important change was personal. Nothing would have changed in their organizations if they hadn’t changed.101
The hope is that Army leaders finally, and fully, embrace the uncertainty that is
empowerment, to help motivate Soldiers accustomed to high levels of responsibility in
combat, help redistribute tasks and responsibility among a reduced force structure, and
help retain our most capable leaders.
Endnotes
1 Dennis J. Reimer, “Leadership for the 21st Century: Empowerment, Environment and the Golden Rule,” Military Review 77, no. 1 (JAN-FEB 1997), 48.
2 Ibid, 51.
3 Eric K. Shinseki, Concepts for the Objective, White Paper (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, November 8, 2001), ii.
39
4 Ibid, 7-8.
5 James M. Dubrik, “Leadership Beyond the Chain of Command,” Army, December 2009, 16.
6 Theodore G. Stroub, “Leadership and Organizational Culture: Actions Speak Louder Than Words,” Military Review LXXVI, no. 1 (January-February 1996): 47.
7 A simple search of empowerment will manifest these different levels. However, I have not found all levels included in a single article.
8 Ruth Alsop and Nina Heinsohn, “Measuring Empowerment in Practice: Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510, (February 2005), 5, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/ WDSP/IB/2005/03/06/000090341_20050306094734/Rendered/PDF/wps3510.pdf (accessed February 1, 2012).
9 Ibid.
10 Yehuda Baruch, “Applying Empowerment: Organizational Model,” Career Development International 3, no. 2 (1988): 82.
11 Philip M. Podsakoff and Chester A. Schriesheim, “Field Studies of French and Raven’s Bases of Power: Critique, Reanalysis, and Suggestions for Future Research,” Psychological Bulleting 97, no. 3. (1985): 389-391.
12 Ibid.
13 Jean M. Bartunek, and Gretchen M. Spreitzer, “The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in Management: Empowerment in the Late 20th Century,” Journal of Management Inquiry 15, no. 3 (September 2006): 257.
14 Ibid, 259.
15 Jean M. Bartunek, and Gretchen M. Spreitzer, “The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in Management: Empowerment in the Late 20th Century,” Journal of Management Inquiry 15, no. 3 (September 2006): 264.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid, 265.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
40
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Tom G. Cummings, ed. The Handbook of Organizational Development (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2008), 311.
26 Warren G. Bennis and Joan Goldsmith. Learning to Lead: A Workbook On Becoming a Leader (Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1997), xviii.
27 U.S. Department of the Army, Army Leadership, Field Manual 22-100 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, August 31, 1999), 5-6.
28 U.S. Department of the Army, Army Leadership, Field Manual 6-22 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, October 12, 2006), 7-8.
29 Robert M. Mundell, Empowerment: A 21st Century Leaders Critical Core Competency, Strategy Research Project (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, January 29, 2009), 4.
30 U.S. Department of the Army, Army Command Policy, Army Regulation 600-20 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, March 18, 2008), 6.
31 Jean M. Bartunek, and Gretchen M. Spreitzer, “The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in Management: Empowerment in the Late 20th Century,” Journal of Management Inquiry 15, no. 3 (September 2006): 270.
32 Martin E. Dempsey, America’s Military – A Profession of Arms, White Paper (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, February 2012), 3.
33 Michael G. Mullen, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, Version 3 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, January 15, 2009), iv.
34 Ibid, v.
35 Charles C. Manz, “Self-Leadership: Toward an Expanded Theory of Self-Influence Processes in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review 11, no. 3 (1986): 587.
36 Victor H. Vroom, “Educating Managers for Decision Making and Leadership,” Management Decision 41, no. 10 (2003), 968.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid, 969.
39 Julian Barling and Cary L. Cooper, eds., The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Volume 1 (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2008), 68.
40 Ibid, 60.
41
41 Douglas D. Perkins and Marc A. Zimmerman, “Empowerment Theory, Research, and
Application,” American Journal of Community Psychology 23, no. 5 (October 1995): 571.
42 Yehuda Baruch, “Applying Empowerment: Organizational Model,” Career Development International 3, no. 2 (1988): 82.
43 Greg L. Stewart, Stephen H. Courtright, and Charles C. Manz, “Self-Leadership: A Multilevel Review,” Journal of Management 37, no. 1 (January 2011): 190.
44 Douglas D. Perkins and Marc A. Zimmerman, “Empowerment Theory, Research, and Application,” American Journal of Community Psychology 23, no. 5 (October 1995): 570.
45 Ibid.
46 U.S. Department of the Army, Army Leadership, Field Manual 6-22 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, October 12, 2006), 2-4.
47 Peter Block, The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987), 20.
48 Ibid, 24.
49 Ibid, 21.
50 Ibid, 67.
51 Ibid, 80.
52 Ibid, 79.
53 Ibid, 89.
54 Ibid, 89.
55 Ibid, 83.
56 Ibid, 96.
57 Ibid, 97.
58 Charles C. Manz, “Self-Leadership: Toward an Expanded Theory of Self-Influence Processes in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review 11, no. 3 (1986): 585.
59 Ibid, 586.
60 Ibid, 586.
61 Ibid, 587.
42
62 Scott Seibert, Seth Silver, and W. Alan Randolph, “Taking Empowerment to the Next
Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and Satisfaction,” The Academy of Management Journal 47, no. 3 (June 2004): 332.
63 Ibid, 333.
64 Ibid, 334.
65 Ibid, 335.
66 Ibid, 340.
67 Charles C. Manz and Henry P. Sims, Jr., “SuperLeadership: Beyond the Myth of Heroic Leadership,” Journal of Organizational Dynamics 19, no. 4 (1991): 33.
68 Ibid, 18.
69 Ibid, 33.
70 Victor H. Vroom, “Educating Managers for Decision Making and Leadership,” Journal of Management Decision 41, no. 10 (2003): 970.
71 U.S. Department of the Army, Command Climate Survey Training Version 3.0, (Arlington, VA.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, August 11, 1998), 4.
72 Manuela Pardo del Val and Bruce Lloyd, Measuring Empowerment, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25, no. 2 (2003): 103.
73 Ibid, 105.
74 Ibid, 112.
75 Marc A. Zimmerman, “Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the Distinction Between Individual and Psychological Conceptions,” American Journal of Community Psychology 18, no. 1 (1990): 175.
76 Ibid, 115.
77 Ruth Alsop and Nina Heinsohn, “Measuring Empowerment in Practice: Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510, (February 2005), 86, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/ WDSContentServer/ WDSP/IB/2005/03/06/000090341_20050306094734/ Rendered/PDF/wps3510.pdf (accessed February 1, 2012).
78 Margaret J.Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 67.
79 David Leake and Rhonda Black, Essential Tools – Improving Secondary Education and Transition for Youth with Disabilities - Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Implications for Transition Personnel (Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2005), 17.
43
80 Ibid, 25.
81 Margaret J.Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 64.
82 Peter Block, Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993), 7.
83 U.S. Department of the Army, Army Command Policy, Army Regulation 600-20 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, March 18, 2008 with Rapid Action Revision August 4, 2011), 6.
84 Yehuda Baruch, “Applying Empowerment: Organizational Model,” Career Development International 3, no. 2 (1988): 84.
85 U.S. Department of the Army, Operations, Field Manual 3-0 Change 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, February 22, 2011), 5-2.
86 U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Operating Concepts – Third Edition, (Quantico, VA.: U.S. Marine Corps, February 22, 2011), 16.
87 Margaret J.Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 65-66.
88 Marc A. Zimmerman, “Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the Distinction Between Individual and Psychological Conceptions,” American Journal of Community Psychology 18, no. 1 (February 1990): 172.
89 Victor H. Vroom, “Educating Managers for Decision Making and Leadership,” Management Decision 41, no. 10 (2003): 977.
90 Peter Block, Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993), 30.
91 Peter Block, The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987), 47.
92 Ibid, 48.
93 Margaret J.Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 69.
94 William C. Byham, Zapp! The Lighting of Empowerment (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), 173.
95 United States Army War College, Leadership Lessons at Division Command Level – 2010 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: United States Army War College, January 20, 2011), 11.
96 Margaret J.Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 70.
44
97 Peter Block, The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987), 72.
98 Stephen J. Gerras, Leonard Wong, and Charles D. Allen, Organizational Culture: Applying A Hybrid Model to the U.S. Army (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, DCLM, June 2008).
99 United States Joint Forces Command, The Joint Operating Environment 2010 (Suffolk, VA: United States Joint Forces Command, March 2010), 71.
100 Margaret J.Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 2.
101 Ibid, 72.